From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER. Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:14:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4619AFA9.8080801@garzik.org> References: <46157B5B.5000602@gmail.com> <1175817921.18400.1183285196@webmail.messagingengine.com> <461592FB.5060507@zytor.com> <1175819681.20754.1183287946@webmail.messagingengine.com> <461596DE.2020802@zytor.com> <1175823288.25662.1183293506@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4615C780.5040407@zytor.com> <1175833931.8916.1183307802@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20070407191715.GG3510@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <46186A5B.7010309@comcast.net> <4618BCAD.5000202@garzik.org> <4619AA52.5040702@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "David H. Lynch Jr" Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51324 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752568AbXDIDOw (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Apr 2007 23:14:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4619AA52.5040702@comcast.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org David H. Lynch Jr wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready. > > Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are > arguing ? > > Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read > Hans's post from months if not years ago. > Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one > sided, I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case > that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with > regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of > use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get. > > I for one would atleast play with it if it were in the distribution > tree. > As far as I could tell pretty much everything else that was demanded > Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning, > and holy than thou rhetoric. > > The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the > distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in > the distribution trees. I'm arguing against circular logic: the claim that one cannot determine reiser4's true usefulness unless its in the tree. The better method is to get a distro to add reiser4, _then_ if it proves worthy add it to the kernel tree. Not the other way around. Jeff